IN entering upon an inquiry into the origin, nature, and influence of Mysticism, as an element in Hermeneutics, it is first of all necessary to fix clearly the sense we attach to the word. And this is the more needful from its being a term very loosely employed, and somewhat vague in its signification.

      Our standard lexicographer defines it to be: "1. Obscurity of doctrine. 2. The doctrine of the Mystics, who profess a pure, sublime, and perfect devotion, wholly disinterested, and maintain that in calm and holy contemplation they have direct intercourse with the Divine Spirit, and acquire a knowledge in Divine things which is unattainable by the reasoning faculty." This definition admirably describes the Mystics, but seems to leave us in the dark as to mysticism, unless some ray of light can be drawn from the phrase "obscurity of doctrine!" We resort, therefore, to Mr. Mill's definition, which appears to be both philosophical and complete. He says: "Whether in the Vedas, in the Platonists, or in the Hegelians, mysticism is neither [46] more nor less than ascribing objective existence to the subjective creations of the mind's own faculties, to mere ideas of the intellect; and believing that by watching and contemplating these ideas of its own making, it can read in them what takes place in the world without."¹

      It proceeds, therefore, upon the principle, that whatever can be clearly and separately conceived in the mind, must have a separate and substantive existence. And as the mind not only forms distinct ideas of general laws, but as these are truly the objects of scientific research, there must be general objects in existence corresponding to such conceptions or ideas. Hence truth is not to be acquired from the observation of individual facts, but by absorbing all the faculties into contemplation--the one great purpose of life. Thus when the mind, removed as far as possible from the influence of all individual facts, and shut up within itself, forms conceptions or ideas, these are the images of a reality, of which individuals may be a modification, but never more than a modification. In other words, the Mystic who clearly perceives the idea generated in his contemplations, may be able to trace it, grossly and imperfectly presented, in facts; but as these are in perpetual flux and transmutation, while the idea with its corresponding object is permanent, that becomes the standard to which they must be adjusted. That is, before facts can express the actual truth, they must be made to conform to the ideal--and this is the work of the Mystic Method. [47]

      If, after this brief explanation, any obscurity still lingers around the subject in the apprehension of the general reader, we trust it will be dissipated by considering the historical development which we shall presently proceed to exhibit. But lest the philosophic terms employed by Mr. Mill should embarrass those not familiar with such language, we may add this to what is said above, namely, that we shall use the term mysticism to signify any system which professes to see more in natural or revealed phenomena than is cognizable by common sense, whether this enlargement of mental vision be the result of the transference of ideas arising from contemplation, or of those drawn from any other source; while the course pursued to make the facts appear to justify such increase or change in their natural meaning will be recognized as the mystic method.

      In tracing theological mysticism to its origin, we may be surprised for a moment to find ourselves wandering in the gloom and darkness of the ancient philosophy of Chaldea, or attempting to explore the cryptic learning of the Persian Magi. This, however, is its true source, and we can but congratulate ourselves that a correct analysis of the stream is not dependent upon an intimate acquaintance with the fountain. For, owing to the meagre accounts which have come down to us from the remote antiquity in which it flourished, as well as to the cabalistic symbols in which it was often communicated, the philosophy, or, what is much the same, the theology of the East, is very imperfectly known.

      The sum of what may be collected from the accounts of [48] Berosas, Diogenes Laertius, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Strabo, as given by Brucker, is, that the Chaldeans believed that in the beginning all things consisted of darkness and water; that Belus, or a divine power, dividing this humid mass, formed the world; and that the human mind is an emanation from the divine nature. The Persians conceived light (or those spiritual substances which partake of the nature of fire) and darkness, or the impenetrable, opake, and passive mass of matter, to be emanations from one eternal source. These active and passive principles they conceived to be perpetually at variance; the former tending to produce good, the latter evil; but that, through the mediation or intervention of the Supreme Being, the contest would at last terminate in favor of the good principle. They also believed that various orders of spiritual beings, gods, or demons, proceeded from the Deity, among which the human soul is a particle of divine light, and will return to its source and partake of its immortality.²

      This is regarded, with good reason, as the source of the philosophy of several other countries, particularly of India and of Egypt; and it is not improbable that an influence so extensively active, affected all the speculations of ancient time. It is not, therefore, surprising that in process of time attempts should have been made to reform other systems by adjusting them to this ancient standard. How often this might have been done it does not concern us now [49] to inquire; suffice it to say that, before the close of the second century of our era, Ammonius Saccas had formed the stupendous design of harmonizing all the learning and philosophy of the world upon this basis--believing it to be the root whence all else had sprung. " He maintained," says Mosheim, "that all the different religions which prevailed in the world, were, in their original integrity, conformable to the genius of this ancient philosophy; but that it unfortunately happened that the symbols and fictions, under which the ancients delivered their precepts and doctrines, were, in process of time, erroneously understood both by priests and people in a literal sense; that, in consequence of this, the invisible beings and demons, whom the Supreme Deity had placed in different parts of the universe as ministers of his providence, were, by the suggestions of superstition, converted into gods, and worshiped with a multiplicity of vain ceremonies. He therefore insisted, that the religions of all nations should be restored to their original purity, and reduced to their primitive standard, viz., 'The ancient philosophy of the East;' and he affirmed that his project was agreeable to the intentions of Jesus Christ, whose sole view, in descending upon earth, was to set bounds to the reigning superstition, and to remove the errors that had crept into all religions, but not to abolish the ancient theology from which they were derived."³

      Collecting thus a mass of heterogeneous tenets, speculations, [50] and principles gathered indiscriminately in the aggregate from enlightened philosophers, heathen priests, and inspired Apostles and Prophets, he forced all, by the "violent succors of art, invention, and allegory," to bear some resemblance to the primitive model. And as Plato was thought most nearly to resemble the original, or rather most clearly to express its cardinal doctrines, which he was supposed to have rescued from the corruptions of the Greeks, and as his name was in itself a tower of strength and a guarantee of soundness, the amalgamated philosophy was called Platonism--better known and distinguished as the New or Neo-Platonism.

      The impetus thus given to "investigations," if such they may be called, will be readily imagined. Here was the whole world of mind, embalmed in a thousand voluminous. works, and exhibited in ten thousand different manifestations and developments, all to be studied and interpreted in the light of an obscure theology, the very language of which was confessedly symbolic and mystical. What a field for the exercise of genius! A universe of facts pregnant with a new significance, discoverable without examination, and confirmable without. Proof! The rhapsodies of Hindoo priests became visible in Plato's Dialogues; the mysteries of Persian Pytheri were the foundation of Pythagoras' numbers; the Ethics of the Stagirite squared with the wisdom of Chaldean soothsayers; while the sublime principles of the Gospel could be read from the Hieroglyphics of Alexandria! But with eyes to see the invisible, and ears to hear the inaudible, and a mind to understand the incomprehensible, [51] what wondrous things may not be seen, and heard, and known!

      After all, however, the original movers in this scheme imposed upon themselves and the world by a fallacy. They began with the assumption that the ancient philosophy of the East was not to be understood literally--that its real meaning was something altogether different from the obvious sense of the words in which it had been taught. Whence, then, was this meaning to be derived, if not from the philosophy itself? Where was the instrument that could disclose a sense in it contrary to that of its language Evidently in the mind of the founder himself. This, by means of mere contemplation, without basis or standard, generated the ideas which were transferred, first to that philosophy, and afterwards to all philosophy and all religion. But this is precisely the definition of mysticism--"ascribing objective existence to the subjective creations of the mind's own faculties, to mere ideas of the intellect." And if Ammonius did not believe, in the first instance, that "by watching and contemplating his ideas, he could learn what existed in the world without," he did that which was equivalent to it--embalmed those ideas in one system, and then read in that the contents of all others.

      Here, then, we begin our survey of mysticism, not because it is the first manifestation of it, but because all the streams of truth and falsehood were here first brought by its fell influence to mingle into a current whose pestilential miasmata has been diffused over all Christendom; because here first the limpid stream of Christian doctrine was forced [52] into the channel of its turbid waters, and made to receive a pollution from which it has not even yet been wholly purified.

      Although the reader may have anticipated, from the remarks which have gone before, the influence which such a system as that we have been considering would be likely to exert upon Christian doctrine, it will still be profitable to observe it more minutely, and to dwell upon it with some specification and detail. For this purpose let us contemplate it as it gradually enlarges its sphere and discloses its true character.

      Very soon after the establishment of the New Platonism, towards the conclusion of the second century, a considerable number of its adherents were converted to the Christian faith, among whom were Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus,⁴ and Origen. But although, as we have said, they were converted, in some sense, to the Christian faith, they were not converted from their Platonism. This they still retained and loved. True, their faith in it might not have been as implicit as in the Bible, but they were, nevertheless, as fully persuaded of its general verity, and its essential importance in the perfection of a system of truth, as they were of the truth and value of the Canonical Scriptures. They were delighted with the divine [53] assurance of the Scripture doctrine, but they also saw in Platonism, as they imagined, many divine truths, which might be legitimately transferred to the Church. They were strengthened in this view by an opinion which had gained currency, but which, it is hardly necessary to say, was wholly without foundation, that Plato had acquired the elements of his philosophy from the Old Testament--either from the Alexandrians, who were informed to some extent of the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures, or from a Greek translation made at an earlier date than the Septuagint. In their eyes, therefore, his whole system was but an elaboration of revealed truth, a full development of principles of divine verity. His inferences and reasonings might sometimes be erroneous, and upon these they felt some little freedom in pronouncing a judgment; but the essential and fundamental doctrines he inculcated they looked upon as very high, if not the highest authority.

      But it is not only true that they cherished a decided predilection for the sage whose name they revered; it is also to be remembered that the great mass of unbelievers were Platonists. His doctrines--remodeled and unjustly represented, it is true, but still held under the sanction of his name--formed the staple of every conversation, and the perpetual topic of every discourse. The whole circle of learning and speculation revolved round this centre. It was the point of departure in every investigation, and the established test of every new proposition.

      It was but natural, under such circumstances, for those learned Christians who believed both the Bible and Plato, [54] to attempt to show a "harmony and coincidence in their capital doctrines." And as the philosopher was already the accredited standard, it is by no means surprising that those attempts should have been made rather with the design of proving that the Bible agreed with Plato, than that he agreed with the Bible. "This coalition," says Brucker, "was attempted to be made in the second century by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Clemens; and the corruption of faith which led to this formal effort doubtless existed still earlier."

      "The New Philosophy," says Mosheim, "was imprudently adopted by Origen and many other Christians, to the prejudice of the cause of the gospel and the beautiful simplicity of its celestial doctrines. For hence it was that the Christian doctors began to introduce their perplexed and obscure erudition into the religion of Jesus; and to involve in the darkness of a vain philosophy some of the principal truths of Christianity, that had been revealed with the utmost plainness, ad were, indeed, obvious to the meanest capacity; and to add to the divine precepts of our Lord many of their own, which had no sort of foundation in any part of the sacred writings."⁵

      This was mysticism in contact with the Bible. Every one who looked upon its sacred pages converted them into a mirror that should reflect his own ideas, or those which he had accepted from the philosophers around him. For, we repeat, it was not Platonism, nor yet the ancient philosophy [55] of the East, that constituted the real standard of truth--for they were as flexible and mutable as anything else--but it consisted alone in the baseless ideas of the philosophers themselves; ideas whose objective existence they saw, as they supposed, in the Bible, in Plato, and in every other system.

      But how, it may be asked, could such wonderful phantasmagoria be generated out of the plain and simple truths of revelation? What magical art could be employed that would enable them to exhibit to others the marvelous visions of their own imaginations? The process was simple--a mere method of interpretation.

      They reasoned about in this way: "There can be no opposition in truth; the Bible and what we call Platonism is truth; therefore the Bible must agree with Platonism. If this agreement does not appear in the plain letter, it is because the plain letter does not communicate the true sense; then it must have a mystical meaning, which does agree with the standard." What that meaning was, whether reached by allegorizing the passage, or by any other process, we can be at no loss to determine--it was one that coincided precisely with the ideas they carried with them to the investigation. And the same argument which justified them in turning the truth of the letter into a heterogeneous myth, proved the truth of the myth by a process of ratiocination whose premises none in that day would have dared to question.

      But let us do those fathers the justice to believe that, in addition to the motive already mentioned, they were, in [56] many cases, actuated by a genuine but misguided philanthropy; a mistake from which Christian philanthropists might even yet draw warning--that, namely, of accommodating the truth to the prejudices of the age. They doubtless believed that the Church would gain an immense accession of strength, and greatly enlarge the sphere of her usefulness and the area of her blessings, if the great body of philosophers at Alexandria and elsewhere could be propitiated to Christianity; and to effect this, the surest and most direct road seemed to be to prove that the doctrine of the New Testament did not differ, in its true sense, from what they had already received from Plato. It seemed, indeed, but the dictate of common sense for them to hold that if what the Alexandrians believed and cherished upon the authority of Plato could be shown to have been inculcated also upon the authority of Jesus, his authority would be elevated at least to an equality with that of the philosopher; and this would be placing it very high, if not, in their judgment, high enough.

      The prosperity of the Church, therefore, the interests of humanity, and their own convictions of truth, might all have concurred in directing them to pursue the course they did, and to adopt as their golden rule of interpretation, "That wherever the literal sense was not obvious, or not clearly consistent with their philosophical views, the words were to be understood in a spiritual or mystical sense."⁶ [57]

      According to Mosheim, "They all attributed a double sense to the words of Scripture; the one obvious and literal, the other hidden and mysterious, which lay concealed, as it were, under the veil of the outward letter. The former they treated with the utmost neglect, and turned the whole force of their genius and application to unfold the latter; or, in other words, they were more studious to darken the Scriptures with their idle fictions than to investigate their true and natural sense." Again, he says, "Origen was at the head of this speculative tribe. This great man, enchanted by the charms of the Platonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religion, and imagined that the reasons of each doctrine were to be found in that favorite philosophy, and their nature and extent to be determined by it."⁷

      Upon a general survey of all the facts, Dr. Enfield concludes, "That the seeds of the Scholastic Theology⁸ were sown when the dialectics of Aristotle were first introduced into the controversies of the Church; and the Mystic Theology took its rise when the enthusiastic notion of union with God, and other fanatical principles taught by the Alexandrian philosophers, were embraced among Christians; and was established when the spurious writings of Dionysius⁹ obtained credit and authority in the Christian world. From the Peripatetic school, Christians learned to perplex the truth by subtle disputations; and from that of [58] the later Platonists, they received a powerful bias toward enthusiasm. Hence, with the professed design of exploring truth, they involved it in a cloud of obscure notions and subtle distinctions; and under the pretence of sublime piety, enfeebled and enslaved the human mind by the extravagancies of mysticism; in both ways opposing the true spirit, and obstructing the natural operation of Christianity."¹⁰ [59]

[TOOS 46-59]